Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
394
debates
43.65%
won
Topic
#5061
Homosexuality is harmless in moderation
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1280
rating
352
debates
39.91%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on topic, drop a comment.
Round 1
Homosexuality is accepted pretty much in society like alcohol use and cigarette use. The standard is moderation or some sort of restraint. It can't be rampant thus classifying it as harmless.
A little drinking but not to the point you become an alcoholic. Not to where you're driving while intoxicated. It's the same way with food. Even nutritionists or physicians will permit sweets or candy in moderation or under some sort of constraint.
Less nutritional products nominally junk food, sweets, fried foods,these are acceptable and permissible as products to consume once in a while, here and there, rare occasion to a limit. Intake must be limited or else the damage and or ramifications erupt.
With a limited amount of homosexuality it is rather easy to just sit back and say it's harmless. The world's population is not a concern. Whenever possible, the rebuttal is offered of dying out.
This argument is instantly rejected on account of the reason it's unrealistic and that's as far as it goes.
If it were real world conditions, this forces a different argument. Either the reality of damage is faced or the value of life gets more nihilistic than ever.
That reality is homosexuality is accepted as it kept under constraint. With it being kept limited and overwhelmed by heterosexuality it is deemed harmless.
I believe heterosexual people that support homosexuality highly doubt and reject the idea that the majority or average relationship will not be heterosexual so what's the harm?
We can be comfortable with the "love is love" mantra. We're so comfortable not giving thought to something that will never happen right. In the back of ALL of our minds we're content and relieved of this fact. It's our safety net and we posture with acceptance of homosexuality.
We know some things are bad for us but can be fine or no harm in "moderation".
Moderation is pointless and causes harm.
Moderation makes you feel pathetic and doesnt really satisfy anyone.
What needs to be done is excessive homosexuality. Even those who are not homosexuals should engage in homosexual activities.
Homosexuals should suck dick 20 times a day.
Round 2
"Moderation is pointless and causes harm.
Moderation makes you feel pathetic and doesnt really satisfy anyone.
What needs to be done is excessive homosexuality. Even those who are not homosexuals should engage in homosexual activities."
So let me get this right. Are you saying homosexuality running rampant to the point where the majority of sexual activity on the planet is homosexual and the birth rate is almost non existent, this is not harmful to human survival?
If this is your point, please back it up with an argument. I'm telling you now, being flippant will not work for your case, it won't work with me.
I am not saying people shouldnt reproduce.
You should still fuck your wife.
But also suck some dicks when you are not fucking your wife.
Or at least watch gay porn after fucking your wife.
Round 3
It's still not clear on the answer to this question.
"So let me get this right. Are you saying homosexuality running rampant to the point where the majority of sexual activity on the planet is homosexual and the birth rate is almost non existent, this is not harmful to human survival?"
So just simply from you , is it harmful or not?
Okay, the world doesnt have only those two options.
You can practice homosexuality a lot and still fuck your wife and reproduce.
Its not
"Lots of homosexuality or reproduction"
It can easily be both.
Round 4
"Okay, the world doesnt have only those two options."
Why can't you just answer the question?
If I ask you does a triangle have 2 sides or 3 sides, would you answer that question 2 sides or 3?
In a scenario with homosexuality running rampant to the point where the majority of sexual activity on the planet is homosexual and the birth rate is almost non existent, is this not harmful to human survival?
If it isn't, why not?
"You can practice homosexuality a lot and still fuck your wife and reproduce.
Its not
"Lots of homosexuality or reproduction"
It can easily be both."
This is not what I'm asking you though. You're shifting the question around to a scenario of moderation or close to it which is my position.
So you're cycling back into agreement with me without realizing it I suppose.
Your position in this topic is exactly to that question I asked you in that scenario. You're supposed to argue there's no harm even with no moderation at least.
You're doing exactly what I just said in the first round. Whenever hit with the point about world population at stake, there's deflection in addressing that .
"Whenever possible, the rebuttal is offered of dying out.
This argument is instantly rejected on account of the reason it's unrealistic and that's as far as it goes."
This is what I said in the first round. The point of this topic was to actually force your hand in coming up with a rebuttal to the argument of dying out. It wasn't to do exactly what I said typically happens when given the argument of world population. We know what happens when the argument is given. You just committed it or have done so the last couple rounds.
Context of the topic:
"In a scenario with homosexuality running rampant to the point where the majority of sexual activity on the planet is homosexual and the birth rate is almost non existent, is this not harmful to human survival?"
So if you don't answer it's harmful or harmless, it's conceding because it's a rejection of the topic.
If it's harmful, thank you. If it's harmless, present your case.
My opponent again uses false "or".
In my opponent's view, there can be either a little bit of homosexuality, or only homosexuality.
This false "or" is obvious when we see that average man can suck dick 10 times a day and still fuck his wife.
So there can be excessive homosexuality and reproduction, although its probably better for the world to stop reproducing.
Now, moderation is harmful because it leaves you unsatisfied. Thats the entire point of moderation, to leave you unsatisfied.
Round 5
If I ask you the question privately, will you answer?
You too scared to answer the question in this debate.
I'm not allowing deviation and red herrings with your claims on moderation and harm left and right.
You obviously agree that homosexuality in moderation is harmless because you're repetitiously putting forth the effort in communicating " we can have both"..."we can have both"...."we can have both"....."we can have both".
I'm not arguing what we can have. This "we can have both" rhetoric is what MODERATING homosexuality is. You moderate it with an abundance of heterosexuality or a substantial amount to balance out the stunting effects on the population.
Just like you moderate salt intake with potassium intake so salt doesn't get out of hand throwing everything out of balance adversely. You moderate sugar intake with fiber or protein or simply reducing the intake. You moderate a debate between two parties by reducing and or limiting input from both sides. Such as this one as well as others, apparently I've got you well moderated.
So YOU AGREE with the moderation is key to homosexuality being harmless. You can't answer the question without running to the "we can have both" stance.
I think you realize that so then what do you do?
You double talk with rhetoric of not reproducing being better for the world.
Which doesn't make sense. Why would an inhabitable life sustaining life developing life giving world exist if it's better as you claim to not actually have life in it in which it gave birth to?
I understand you're just looking for fun and games but out of courtesy for the readers that read all this and want to learn, make every effort not to confuse them. You may reject the truth but don't reject it for others with falsehood.
Oh okay. Well, I might have misunderstood what you meant by moderation, but now I get it.